Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times
Topic started on 30-3-2009 @ 03:24 PM by jdub297

Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace


www.reuters.com
Carbon market prices could tumble 75 percent if credits for re-growing forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Greenpeace claims.

A report issued during U.N. talks on a climate treaty said that forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology. "Forest credits sound attractive but they are a dangerous option," Greenpeace International's political adviser on forests said.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cato.org
www.reuters.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Cato Ad: "With All Due Respect Mr. President, That (AGW) Is Not True"


reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 04:25 PM by Long Lance
that does it.

Greenpeace is just a gov't front group, probably always has been.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

once there's money on the table, CO2 is suddenlya side show, who would have thought. still, greeners and gorists won't listen, because they already know.

these people should all be tried for crimes against humanity, because their criminal pursuit of fuel crops took the food off the tables of millions of people. this insanity should be ended by lethal injection or whatever is en vogue today. i'm serious. they killed lots of people and destabilized the entire world for their 'carbon trading'.


reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 04:26 PM by jdub297
reply to post by drwizardphd

I believe that the climate changes.

I do not believe that man's addition of CO2 effects these changes.

I also believe that most AGW advocates, as Greenpeace's stance proves, are more motivated by money than concern for the environment.

deny ignorance

jw


reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 04:44 PM by star in a jar
reply to post by jdub297
[I also believe that most AGW advocates, as Greenpeace's stance proves, are more motivated by money than concern for the environment.]

I agree, follow the money, and one will always find the real reason.

If I found a big bag of drug money on the side of a road, I wouldn't return it either.


reply posted on 31-3-2009 @ 03:25 PM by Aeons
reply to post by jdub297


Carbon credits are a scheme to have rich countries pay poor countries to not develop.


reply posted on 31-3-2009 @ 10:33 PM by mandroid
Originally posted by Long Lance
that does it.

Greenpeace is just a gov't front group, probably always has been.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

once there's money on the table, CO2 is suddenlya side show, who would have thought. still, greeners and gorists won't listen, because they already know.

these people should all be tried for crimes against humanity, because their criminal pursuit of fuel crops took the food off the tables of millions of people. this insanity should be ended by lethal injection or whatever is en vogue today. i'm serious. they killed lots of people and destabilized the entire world for their 'carbon trading'.



WOW are you REALLY being serious? You have a lot of us figured out wrong and you are misinformed on other fronts. Non petroleum yet carbon based fuel sources are a real possibility but it requires a lot of work to balance everything out. There are plants that could be grown for seed and the stalks could be used for fuel for instance. There are biological methods that can speed up the digestion of plant material into usable fuel for less than the cost to produce it.

How did they/we destabilize the entire world for carbon trading? It is a talked about scheme but the details are still being worked out and here is a voice from Greenpeace saying it won't work. Like a lot of people say it makes no sense to allow companies to go on polluting OUR air.


reply posted on 31-3-2009 @ 11:13 PM by ANNED
Greenpeace wants the money from industry so they can turnaround and file lawsuits against the same industries for global warming CO2.

This will turn into a never ending list of frivolous lawsuits that will bankrupt industries and cause the loss of millions of jobs expect the the field of environmental lawyers.

As it is now Greenpeace wins only about 1 in 5 lawsuits.
but it cost the companies that win billions in loss of jobs and earning.

And most companies don't win because they have better lawyers because Greenpeace has many of the best environmental lawyers in the county.
The companies win because many of the lawsuits are just harassment or blackmail where the companies payoff Greenpeace just to save money.

What you may see if Greenpeace gets this carbon market money is that Greenpeace will start suing even home owner for emitting CO2 when they heat there homes.

Greenpeace makes the money not from membership but from there lawsuits.

All the environmental movement want this money to use to make more money by lawsuits or any other means.

www.phillipsandcohen.com...
pnp.uschamber.com...

A lot of there money is used to block green project like the ones Obama claims to support. if all other method do not work the use the money to file lawsuit to stop green projects. Its real strange when the same groups that claim they support green energy projects are the main group that stops them.
Unless they DO NOT WANT to lower CO2 levels because then they would loose control of all this money or because THEY KNOW that global warming is not caused by CO2 or man and they do not want to loose there golden egg.
pnp.uschamber.com...
pnp.uschamber.com...
saveourwetlands.org...
www.deseretnews.com...

[edit on 31-3-2009 by ANNED]


reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 12:51 AM by cognoscente
reply to post by jdub297


I have to agree with Greenpeace on this one. Forest carbon credits would be much more lucrative for political reasons. There is already a huge social movement surrounding the protection of trees and old growth forests in particular. I'm from British Columbia; I should know. I think the only conspiracy here would be governments co-investing in the interests of these environmental groups. Governments would gain strong public support and they wouldn't have to do spend a dime on energy diversification, which is the only real solution. Credits for carbon sinks is insufficient. Humans are causing global warming; the industries responsible should pay the price in terms of a loss in revenue in oil production, for example.

The main fear is that governments will cop out on the rest of the their obligations, such as investment in energy diversification because of gains in public opinion and increases in support from environmental and other social groups.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by cognoscente]


reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 09:10 AM by Long Lance
Originally posted by mandroid


WOW are you REALLY being serious?



as i said, i am serious about going after organisations that have an agenda, which is surrounded and concealed by oh so good intentions and when they get what they want they switch to money milking mode - at any cost.

forest growth consumes CO2, that much is certain, so why chose 'green tech' over forests? even though the net effect is supposedly all that counts? easy, just accuse everybody and slander dissidents and ram the air tax down out throats so they can a) rob us blind and b) dictate our lives with ever more ideology.

it's like communism, in a way.




How did they/we destabilize the entire world for carbon trading? It is a talked about scheme but the details are still being worked out and here is a voice from Greenpeace saying it won't work. Like a lot of people say it makes no sense to allow companies to go on polluting OUR air.



fuel crops displacing food and food crops being turned directly into fuel due to subsidies, mostly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this move alone displaced killed quite a few people and obviously destabilized the world, much like the oil shock of 2008 did which accompanied it. wantonly and for feel good PR i might add.


i have another recent example, although it does not include NGOs, but academia:

Earth population 'exceeds limits'

GM Foods 'needed'

A National Medal of Science laureate (America's highest science award), the professor of molecular biology believes part of that better land management must include the use of genetically modified foods.


needless to say, no tangible data is included in that particular tirade, as usual. just take a look at the Club Of Rome's predictions and where they went.

GM crops are already older than a decade and there is plenty of experience, i started a thread on the track record so far and what is bound to grow out of such 'initiatives', it's titled

GM Crops and the Coming Famine

if you read a bit through it and follow the links you'll understand why. i am not amused at the prospect of war and famine so Monsanto can make a few more bn, you understand? the track record of GM crops is for all intents and purposes abysimal, but you won't hear any of that from the NGOs, of course, because real arguments are apparently strictly verboten.

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified

all of this pushing and shoving is sold as environmentally friendly, of course. you know what i truely hope that this season's summer temperatures will be 1.5C or more below average, to take wind out of these profiteers' sails. we need a cold spell of several years to shake these ideological ticks off, at pretty much any cost.

PS: i see you're upset, as you should be but fuel crop programs are bases nearly 100% on AGW and these are extremely detrimental for the environment. what about the amazon forest, what about soil depletion? what about synthetic fertilizers?

from what i've seen, people never let facts get in the way of business and if the business is 'green', every acre of land and very grain of rice becomes a target of speculation. there is nothing green about the AGW movement.

==============================================

Originally posted by cognoscente

. Governments would gain strong public support and they wouldn't have to do spend a dime on energy diversification..


lowering dependency on petroleum is a strategic goal first and foremost and would only reduce environmental impact if it was replaced by an efficient and widely available alternative.

emphasis on available.

why not reduce the prevalence of static fuel oil burners before going into vehicles? just an idea, of course, but likely much less profitable than subsidized corn ethanol.

[edit on 2009.4.1 by Long Lance]


reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 10:00 AM by jdub297
Originally posted by mandroid
Are you guys even reading the article?


Yes. Have someone explain it to you.

Greenpeace is arguing that certain activities that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (e.g. preserving forest land from deforestation) should not be given"credit" under the EU's carbon-credit sysytem.

That is, unless an industry actually pays money out to buy credits, net reduction of its emissions should not include non-industrial (i.e., environmental) reduction of its carbon footprint.
(Ex.: If I put 1 ton of CO2 into the air, but plant forests that take out 1 ton, then I should be "carbon neutral.)

Greenpeace, on the other hand, says, 'no, you must BUY 1 ton of credits that we can spend on other technology' (or on anything, really, since there's no spending restriction -- the U.S. cap and trade tax money will be used for non-AGW purposes according to Sen. Majority Leader Reid.).

... You have a lot of us figured out wrong and you are misinformed on other fronts. Non petroleum yet carbon based fuel sources are a real possibility but it requires a lot of work to balance everything out. ...

How did they/we destabilize the entire world for carbon trading? It is a talked about scheme but the details are still being worked out and here is a voice from Greenpeace saying it won't work. Like a lot of people say it makes no sense to allow companies to go on polluting OUR air.


A European 'carbon credit' scheme has been in place since Kyoto. You're right, they do not work; for precisely the reason I pointed out above.

The govt. sell the credits based upon your production of CO2, but can use the money as it wants. Right now the UK is sitting on 'credit' that are worth billions of euros/pounds less than when they were purchased because the market has dropped.

It is a money-making scheme, pure and simple, using "The Environment" as a hot button for public support. It is a lie.

It does not work.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 1-4-2009 by jdub297]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 7 days ago with 83 member flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 2 days ago with 74 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 8 days ago with 72 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 14 days ago with 37 member flags